Which is it?

Razer · Jun 7, 2023

Chanwan said:
I don't get it. Either Djokovic has only been as dominant as he has in recent years, because we are indeed in the career inflation era. Or Djokovic is still so great that there's no shame losing to a 36 year old.
Which is it?

For context: Djokovic numbers in recent times:

Won 5 of his last 7 slams

Won 10 out of his last 16 slams (losses to Rafa (2), Medvedev (1), Thiem (1), Stan (retirement, 1) and PCC/lineswoman (1)

Won 19 out of his last 20 slam semis

Is 25-4 for the year

Is 50-5 since last years FO (not counting Laver Cup)

Is 5-0 in TB's at this years FO and yet to make an UE error in one of those

All these numbers point to a Djokovic close to the peak of his powers. At one point (2015-2016) he won 4 slams in a row (5 out of 6 and 6 out of 8 if we stretch it out). 5 out of 7 is damn close to that level of domination.

Yet the vast majority of posters seem to think that Alcaraz is a failure if he can't beat the current Djokovic, who's dominated the slams roughly as much as he did during his physical peak.
That Alcaraz, who's in his 2nd slam semi, and just turned 20 must win against the statistical GOAT in order to justify the hype.

To repeat:
I don't get it. Either Djokovic has only been as dominant as he has, because we are indeed in the career inflation era. Or Djokovic is still so great that there's no shame losing to a 36 year old.
Which is it? It can't be both as far as I can tell.

Disgust

Djoker already smacked Fedal 11-1 between 2011ao-2012ao and he reached close to 17000 points in 2015-2016, so there is no surprise that he is on 22 slams today and he is the last many standing and the last man to decline.

As my friend @Holmes once said, the best sword is always forged in the hottest of flames... having to break the wall of peak Fedal to start winning slams Djokovic became so tough that he came out victorious in the battle of fed, nadal, djoker, murray, wawrinka, del p, roddick, berdych etc etc for supremacy ... this even made murray super tough that he became better than the field bar big 3, but his body broke .... djoker's did not break because he is that damn good..... like @nachiket nolefam would say, Novak is built different.....

As far as your question goes, Federer raised the level of play from the vacuum, then nadal matched it, and djoker futher matched their levels and since him the level of the field has been going down, now alcaraz will again raise the level....

My graph for overall level of the field last 22 years

Arjuntino · Jun 7, 2023

Chanwan said:
I don't get it. Either Djokovic has only been as dominant as he has in recent years, because we are indeed in the career inflation era. Or Djokovic is still so great that there's no shame losing to a 36 year old.
Which is it?

For context: Djokovic numbers in recent times:

Won 5 of his last 7 slams

Won 10 out of his last 16 slams (losses to Rafa (2), Medvedev (1), Thiem (1), Stan (retirement, 1) and PCC/lineswoman (1)

Won 19 out of his last 20 slam semis

Is 25-4 for the year

Is 50-5 since last years FO (not counting Laver Cup)

Is 5-0 in TB's at this years FO and yet to make an UE error in one of those

All these numbers point to a Djokovic close to the peak of his powers. At one point (2015-2016) he won 4 slams in a row (5 out of 6 and 6 out of 8 if we stretch it out). 5 out of 7 is damn close to that level of domination.

Yet the vast majority of posters seem to think that Alcaraz is a failure if he can't beat the current Djokovic, who's dominated the slams roughly as much as he did during his physical peak.
That Alcaraz, who's in his 2nd slam semi, and just turned 20 must win against the statistical GOAT in order to justify the hype.

To repeat:
I don't get it. Either Djokovic has only been as dominant as he has, because we are indeed in the career inflation era. Or Djokovic is still so great that there's no shame losing to a 36 year old.
Which is it? It can't be both as far as I can tell.

Disgust

Combination of both.

If you look at the elo spread or point spread of big 3 vs the field. In 2010s they were closer to 2500 elo and all pretty consistently around 10k atp points. Current djokovic, med, alcaraz are around 2100 elo and 8000 points.

Current Top of the pack is playing like top 10 players from the big 4 era minus the big 4.

Ie: alacaraz and medvedev ~~ del po, tsonga

mike danny · Jun 7, 2023

Spin Diesel said:
I think Djokovic is still close enough to his peak. What he maybe lost in athleticism or speed or whatever, he gained in experience - which imo improved his tactical approaches, shot selection and also his clutchness.

We all saw how much that helped Fed...

RF-18 · Jun 7, 2023

There would be no matches played if it was based on pre match analysis about who should win based on this or that. There is absolutely no shame to lose to Djokovic and vice versa. Djokovic is still unbelievably good as the numbers show, but Alcaraz has the upper hand on this surface. Djokos best qualities these days isn't for clay while Alcaraz has really everything on this surface. The thing about Djokovic though is that he has the ability like a true champion this sport has ever seen to dig deep and find ways like no other. And a loss won't alter what Alcaraz is destined to achieve in the future. We are looking at an upcoming dominant force in tennis much like Djokovic and Federer had eras.

mike danny · Jun 7, 2023

Chanwan said:
Fed had one massive win and then did "nothing" for two more years. And I do expect Alcaraz to win, but Djoko's numbers are very peak like is all I am saying

Well, we all know why Djokovic's numbers are very peak-like and it's not because he's still actually at his peak.

mike danny · Jun 7, 2023

RF-18 said:
There would be no matches played if it was based on pre match analysis about who should win based on this or that. There is absolutely no shame to lose to Djokovic and vice versa. And it won't alter what Alcaraz is destined to achieve in the future. We are looking at an upcoming dominant force in tennis much like Djokovic and Federer had eras.

But no one will take Carlos seriously as a Fed/Djoker dominant force if he loses a match like this.

ChaelAZ · Jun 7, 2023

Chanwan said:
I don't get it. Either Djokovic has only been as dominant as he has in recent years, because we are indeed in the career inflation era. Or Djokovic is still so great that there's no shame losing to a 36 year old.
Which is it?

For context: Djokovic numbers in recent times:

Won 5 of his last 7 slams

Won 10 out of his last 16 slams (losses to Rafa (2), Medvedev (1), Thiem (1), Stan (retirement, 1) and PCC/lineswoman (1)

Won 19 out of his last 20 slam semis

Is 25-4 for the year

Is 50-5 since last years FO (not counting Laver Cup)

Is 5-0 in TB's at this years FO and yet to make an UE error in one of those

All these numbers point to a Djokovic close to the peak of his powers. At one point (2015-2016) he won 4 slams in a row (5 out of 6 and 6 out of 8 if we stretch it out). 5 out of 7 is damn close to that level of domination.

Yet the vast majority of posters seem to think that Alcaraz is a failure if he can't beat the current Djokovic, who's dominated the slams roughly as much as he did during his physical peak.
That Alcaraz, who's in his 2nd slam semi, and just turned 20 must win against the statistical GOAT in order to justify the hype.

To repeat:
I don't get it. Either Djokovic has only been as dominant as he has, because we are indeed in the career inflation era. Or Djokovic is still so great that there's no shame losing to a 36 year old.
Which is it? It can't be both as far as I can tell.

Disgust

Lots of points jumbled together here to me.

There hasn't been any player since the big 3 who has been of champion quality at their level. That is pretty easy to see. Fed is gone and Nadal is on his last runs, so that just leaves Djo, who peaked later in his career after Fed and Nadal's earlier peaks. Obvioulsy Djo is on the back side of 'peak' (argueably) but yeah, he has less/no challengers. This is akin to early Fed years to me. Call it career inflation, vulturing, or whatever, but the reality is you can only face what competition is in front of you.

With that, plenty of comparisons have already shown Alcaraz being as good for his age as Any of the big 3. By comparison, much better than Djokovic was at the same age by all measures. As mentioned above, Fed's peak was earlier just based on age, Nadal was an early career peak but has maintained it through his career, and Djo didn't really peak until almost 30. It is too early to tell where and when Alcaraz will peak, but what if he is the next iteration of a champion where he grabs earlier success like a Fed, more middle steady success like Nadal, but also the later success and longevity of Djo? Does losing at 20 really say anything? To me, not really. At least nothing we don't already know and certainly nothing about things we can't know.

So it is really both. Or we should say it CAN be both.

Arguing career inflation is easy to do because we can see the scope of what has happened.
Arguing about Alcaraz's current success compared to earlier champions is less clear because Fed, Nadal, and Djo all have peaked differently and Alcz could be seen as doing as well, better than, or maybe worse than any of them.
Arguing anything about Alcaraz's future based on one win or loss at just 20 years old...it's either a hype point for fans, or a comforting point for aging fanbois.

Chanwan · Jun 7, 2023

The Fedfather said:
No, because I swear the popular narrative among those saying this match is irrelevant to Djokovic's status and is everything for Alacaraz's standing in the game, was that Djokovic is sweeping all these titles and is having in some way the best stretch of his career past his 30s because he is THAT GOOD. Because he left the plane of normal with his superior fitness, experiece, talent, mental strength, so at this respectable age he reaching heights that nobody ever reached before.

Introducing a potential match-up with a player of Alcaraz's quality, and suddenly it's all about the age difference, Djokovic at 36 has nothing to prove, it's his weakest surface, and this, and that. Where are the familiar talking points about just how great older Djokovic is, that he can be winning CYGS out there at 34, winning more Slams than he did in his 20s, and it's not at all because the competition is severely lacking? Yeah, all the praise gone with the wind at the sign of real threat.

Exactly

Chanwan · Jun 7, 2023

ChaelAZ said:
Lots of points jumbled together here to me.

There hasn't been any player since the big 3 who has been of champion quality at their level. That is pretty easy to see. Fed is gone and Nadal is on his last runs, so that just leaves Djo, who peaked later in his career after Fed and Nadal's earlier peaks. Obvioulsy Djo is on the back side of 'peak' (argueably) but yeah, he has less/no challengers. This is akin to early years to me Fed. Call it career inflation, vulturing, or whatever, but the reality is you can only face what competition is in front of you.

With that, plenty of comparisons have already shown Alcaraz being as good for his age as Any of the big 3. By comparison, much better than Djokovic was at the same age by all measures. As mentioned above, Fed's peak was earlier just based on age, Nadal was an early career peak but has maintained it through his career, and Djo didn't really peak until almost 30. It is too early to tell where and when Alcaraz will peak, but what if he is the next iteration of a champion where he grabs earlier success like a Fed, more middle steady success like Nadal, but also the later success and longevity of Djo? Does losing at 20 really say anything? To me, not really. At least nothing we don't already know and certainly nothing about things we can't know.

So it is really both. Or we should say it CAN be both.

Arguing career inflation is easy to do because we can see the scope of what has happened.
Arguing about Alcaraz's current success compared to earlier champions is less clear because Fed, Nadal, and Djo all have peaked differently and Alcz could be seen as doing as well, better than, or maybe worse than any of them.
Arguing anything about Alcaraz's future based on one win or loss at just 20 years old...it's either a hype point for fans, or a comforting point for aging fanbois.

Great post. Djoko did peak at 23-24 though (2011)

Kralingen · Jun 7, 2023

The Fedfather said:
No, because I swear the popular narrative among those saying this match is irrelevant to Djokovic's status and is everything for Alacaraz's standing in the game, was that Djokovic is sweeping all these titles and is having in some way the best stretch of his career past his 30s because he is THAT GOOD. Because he left the plane of normal with his superior fitness, experiece, talent, mental strength, so at this respectable age he reaching heights that nobody ever reached before.

Introducing a potential match-up with a player of Alcaraz's quality, and suddenly it's all about the age difference, Djokovic at 36 has nothing to prove, it's his weakest surface, and this, and that. Where are the familiar talking points about just how great older Djokovic is, that he can be winning CYGS out there at 34, winning more Slams than he did in his 20s, and it's not at all because the competition is severely lacking? Yeah, all the praise gone with the wind at the sign of real threat.

Well, Djoko lost to Cecchinato and Thiem and got absolutely ragdolled by Nadal with a bagel in 3 consecutive years at Roland Garros, and still managed to win 5 of the 7 HC/grass majors in that timespan.

So losing on clay is a bit different. Because he’s already done it frequently during this time period.

It’s not a surprise or change from prior performance.

If (really, when - it is guaranteed to happen eventually) Carlos or someone else beats him at Wimbledon/AO it’s a different conversation.

RF-18 · Jun 7, 2023

mike danny said:
But no one will take Carlos seriously as a Fed/Djoker dominant force if he loses a match like this.

I think that is a very unhealthy way to look at things. You shouldn't really say ''no one'' as I doubt everyone shares the same view as you that losing to someone like Djokovic will mean you can't be taken seriously anymore. That is just ridiculous IMV.

ChaelAZ · Jun 7, 2023

Chanwan said:
Great post. Djoko did peak at 23-24 though (2011)

True. I was looking at larger swaths of things for categorizations.

mike danny · Jun 7, 2023

RF-18 said:
I think that is a very unhealthy way to look at things. You shouldn't really say ''no one'' as I doubt everyone shares the same view as you that losing to someone like Djokovic will mean you can't be taken seriously anymore. That is just ridiculous IMV.

Losing to 36 year old Djokovic on clay is not pretty when you're supposed to be the next dominator.

ND-13 · Jun 7, 2023

When we talk about Djokovic should not be winning so much in late 30’s , the answer is he is playing as good as ever and why he shouldn’t .

Now when we say Djokovic is favored to win, he is 36, older than Alcaraz by 16 years, clay is his weakest surface , Alcaraz is No 1 at his peak , Djokovic is having a horrendous clay season, Djokovic is injured , etc .

Should Djokovic win and people say the next Gen is still not up to the mark, folks will do a 180 degree again and say why shouldn’t Djokovic win because he plays as good as ever .

Seriously this is shameful

Holmes · Jun 7, 2023

Razer said:
Djoker already smacked Fedal 11-1 between 2011ao-2012ao and he reached close to 17000 points in 2015-2016, so there is no surprise that he is on 22 slams today and he is the last many standing and the last man to decline.

As my friend @Holmes once said, the best sword is always forged in the hottest of flames... having to break the wall of peak Fedal to start winning slams Djokovic became so tough that he came out victorious in the battle of fed, nadal, djoker, murray, wawrinka, del p, roddick, berdych etc etc for supremacy ... this even made murray super tough that he became better than the field bar big 3, but his body broke .... djoker's did not break because he is that damn good..... like @nachiket nolefam would say, Novak is built different.....

As far as your question goes, Federer raised the level of play from the vacuum, then nadal matched it, and djoker futher matched their levels and since him the level of the field has been going down, now alcaraz will again raise the level....

My graph for overall level of the field last 22 years

Well said my friend. I never realized Novak dominated Fedal 11-1 from 11-12 AOs. RG to Feddy was the loss?

Spin Diesel · Jun 7, 2023

mike danny said:
We all saw how much that helped Fed...

I don't quite get what you're trying to say?

RF-18 · Jun 7, 2023

mike danny said:
Losing to 36 year old Djokovic on clay is not pretty when you're supposed to be the next dominator.

I think only in TTW world and how we treat these elite athletes is it ''not'' pretty. Out in the real world the outlook is different I believe.

mike danny · Jun 7, 2023

RF-18 said:
I think only in TTW world and how we treat these elite athletes is it ''not'' pretty. Out in the real world the outlook is different I believe.

I'm only speaking relative to what you expect him to become. The higher the end-product, the higher the expectations.

Someone as good as Fedovic can't lose to a 36 year old version of them.

InsuranceMan · Jun 7, 2023

Razer said:
Djoker already smacked Fedal 11-1 between 2011ao-2012ao and he reached close to 17000 points in 2015-2016, so there is no surprise that he is on 22 slams today and he is the last many standing and the last man to decline.

As my friend @Holmes once said, the best sword is always forged in the hottest of flames... having to break the wall of peak Fedal to start winning slams Djokovic became so tough that he came out victorious in the battle of fed, nadal, djoker, murray, wawrinka, del p, roddick, berdych etc etc for supremacy ... this even made murray super tough that he became better than the field bar big 3, but his body broke .... djoker's did not break because he is that damn good..... like @nachiket nolefam would say, Novak is built different.....

As far as your question goes, Federer raised the level of play from the vacuum, then nadal matched it, and djoker futher matched their levels and since him the level of the field has been going down, now alcaraz will again raise the level....

My graph for overall level of the field last 22 years

Extremely reputable citations and I like your crayon drawing. A for effort, and maybe even a gold star

mike danny · Jun 7, 2023

Spin Diesel said:
I don't quite get what you're trying to say?

It doesn't matter what improvements you've made to make up for a physical decline as long as your opponent is younger and at his physical peak.

Razer · Jun 7, 2023

Holmes said:
Well said my friend. I never realized Novak dominated Fedal 11-1 from 11-12 AOs. RG to Feddy was the loss?

Yes the only loss to Federer at the french open.
That was a very good version of federer but some of our friends from fed fanbase say it is past its prime fed

InsuranceMan · Jun 7, 2023

Razer said:
Yes the only loss to Federer at the french open.
That was a very good version of federer but some of our friends from fed fanbase say it is past its prime fed

It’s not past prime fed, it’s pre-prime Fed, because we know from TTW poaster expertise that players reach their highest levels as they age, since it only means more experience and development. Take Wimbledon ‘17 or ‘19 for example, as @Holmes has pointed out they’re the products of peaky Federer runs. Great performances. Also why Djokovic cannot lose this match or it would be a huge red flag. Peak Djokovic losing to low form, baby Carlos would be insanity and disastrous for the legacy. That’s why this upcoming match is so important

helterskelter · Jun 7, 2023

Chanwan said:
I don't get it. Either Djokovic has only been as dominant as he has in recent years, because we are indeed in the career inflation era. Or Djokovic is still so great that there's no shame losing to a 36 year old.
Which is it?

For context: Djokovic numbers in recent times:

Won 5 of his last 7 slams

Won 10 out of his last 16 slams (losses to Rafa (2), Medvedev (1), Thiem (1), Stan (retirement, 1) and PCC/lineswoman (1)

Won 19 out of his last 20 slam semis

Is 25-4 for the year

Is 50-5 since last years FO (not counting Laver Cup)

Is 5-0 in TB's at this years FO and yet to make an UE error in one of those

All these numbers point to a Djokovic close to the peak of his powers. At one point (2015-2016) he won 4 slams in a row (5 out of 6 and 6 out of 8 if we stretch it out). 5 out of 7 is damn close to that level of domination.

Yet the vast majority of posters seem to think that Alcaraz is a failure if he can't beat the current Djokovic, who's dominated the slams roughly as much as he did during his physical peak.
That Alcaraz, who's in his 2nd slam semi, and just turned 20 must win against the statistical GOAT in order to justify the hype.

To repeat:
I don't get it. Either Djokovic has only been as dominant as he has, because we are indeed in the career inflation era. Or Djokovic is still so great that there's no shame losing to a 36 year old.
Which is it? It can't be both as far as I can tell.

Disgust

You forget one very important fact: neither Djokovic nor Alcaraz has a single noteworthy achievement to his name. That's right: not one.

As we know on TTW, younger is always better, and it's ATG or bust. Now, bearing in mind those two axioms, we can come to the rightful conclusion that the only true achievement worthy of the name is beating a younger ATG, ideally a six or seven year younger one. Now, who has reached this gold standard? Roger Federer, for one: he has numerous victories over Nadal and Djokovic. Andre Agassi has a very creditable set of victories over Roger Federer from 2001 and 2002, which are especially noteworthy considering that Federer is more than a decade younger than him. But to the best of anyone's current knowledge, neither Djokovic nor Alcaraz has yet achieved this lofty standard. Beating MUGs and golden oldies is not a true achievement, no matter how many trophies it brings you. It might turn out in future that Djokovic and/or Alcaraz has some significant victories, but only time will tell.

RF-18 · Jun 7, 2023

mike danny said:
I'm only speaking relative to what you expect him to become. The higher the end-product, the higher the expectations.

Someone as good as Fedovic can't lose to a 36 year old version of them.

No, I don't believe fridays result will show us an approximate estimation on what Alcaraz can become. It has no significance. It's a major semi final match where both players goes in to try and play their best to win. When it's over, you take the experience win or lose, you go to the next tournament and give your best effort there, you train, and so on.

The Fedfather · Jun 7, 2023

Kralingen said:
Well, Djoko lost to Cecchinato and Thiem and got absolutely ragdolled by Nadal with a bagel in 3 consecutive years at Roland Garros, and still managed to win 5 of the 7 HC/grass majors in that timespan.

So losing on clay is a bit different. Because he’s already done it frequently during this time period.

It’s not a surprise or change from prior performance.

If (really, when - it is guaranteed to happen eventually) Carlos or someone else beats him at Wimbledon/AO it’s a different conversation.

I get this point, and it is valid of course. I myself agree with consideration for the factors of age and weaker surface. I don't think this match is anything for Djokovic to stress about in terms of his legacy as a player.

But the narrative I'm referencing doesn't really go hand in hand with valid points. It's just indless hype when Djokovic is winning, then silence when Djokovic is losing, and excuses before Djokovic can potentially lose. The same people who talked about how this match is nothing for Djokovic because of these factors that mean he is now vulnerable and his level is not at its high, will be blowing the horn about Djokovic being on a different level from everyone if he beats Alcaraz. It's rinse and repeat. Seen it just recently in Aus, when the major concerns about him being injured and not playing well turned into talks of how invincible he is after he won the tournament. lol

Razer · Jun 7, 2023

InsuranceMan said:
It’s not past prime fed, it’s pre-prime Fed, because we know from TTW poaster expertise that players reach their highest levels as they age, since it only means more experience and development. Take Wimbledon ‘17 or ‘19 for example, as @Holmes has pointed out they’re the products of peaky Federer runs. Great performances. Also why Djokovic cannot lose this match or it would be a huge red flag. Peak Djokovic losing to low form, baby Carlos would be insanity and disastrous for the legacy. That’s why this upcoming match is so important

Federer's peak lasted until 2009 end, his prime lasted until 2012 end and then he declined but he was world class until 2019.

I never consider 17 federer as peak federer, it is a past his prime federer but we must agree that 17 federer would smoke any version of roddick/hewitt and possibly most/all versions of murray as well.

duaneeo · Jun 7, 2023

Razer said:
Federer's peak lasted until 2009 end, his prime lasted until 2012 end and then he declined but he was world class until 2019.

Holmes · Jun 7, 2023

InsuranceMan said:
It’s not past prime fed, it’s pre-prime Fed, because we know from TTW poaster expertise that players reach their highest levels as they age, since it only means more experience and development. Take Wimbledon ‘17 or ‘19 for example, as @Holmes has pointed out they’re the products of peaky Federer runs. Great performances. Also why Djokovic cannot lose this match or it would be a huge red flag. Peak Djokovic losing to low form, baby Carlos would be insanity and disastrous for the legacy. That’s why this upcoming match is so important

And modern nutritional and fitness methods minimize the decline of the body, which is why prior generations, for example that of Pete Sampras, did not have this benefit.

Spin Diesel · Jun 7, 2023

mike danny said:
It doesn't matter what improvements you've made to make up for a physical decline as long as your opponent is younger and at his physical peak.

I disagree with that, because tennis is more than just physical.
Apart from that - Djokovic with his alien-body, in my eyes, hasn't declined as much as others and he just turned 36.

Holmes · Jun 7, 2023

Razer said:
Yes the only loss to Federer at the french open.
That was a very good version of federer but some of our friends from fed fanbase say it is past its prime fed

Roger was born past his prime. It's a miracle he's won anything.

ND-13 · Jun 7, 2023

RF-18 said:
I think only in TTW world and how we treat these elite athletes is it ''not'' pretty. Out in the real world the outlook is different I believe.

But Roddick is called a pigeon even though he leads Djokovic 6-5 .

mike danny · Jun 7, 2023

RF-18 said:
No, I don't believe fridays result will show us an approximate estimation on what Alcaraz can become. It has no significance. It's a major semi final match where both players goes in to try and play their best to win. When it's over, you take the experience win or lose, you go to the next tournament and give your best effort there, you train, and so on.

It obviously won't impact his entire career, but it will plant some seeds of doubt in the minds of fans if/when he does become a dominant force.

T007 · Jun 7, 2023

weakera said:
It's both and more nuanced than that. Djokovic is still very good and no one has proven good enough to reach the level of a big three playing at a very good level (yet).

Alcaraz is a failure if he loses to Djokovic in the sense that the hype surrounding him, pushing him as a future big three-level ATG who is beyond any of the big three at the same age, will be proven laughably false.

He never faced an younger ATG in his entire career even in his 30s so far.

In 2011-16 on Grass his competition was Federer and Murray.

In last 5 years his competition is Kyrgios,berrettini,Norrie,Anderson,shapovalov in Fs or SFs.

If competition hasn't declined do you believe these players which are mentioned latter are anywhere close to Federer or Murray on grass.

Holmes · Jun 7, 2023

ND-13 said:
But Roddick is called a pigeon even though he leads Djokovic 6-5 .

I assume we don't need to post Roddick's comments about Djokovic's level relative to his?

mike danny · Jun 7, 2023

Spin Diesel said:
I disagree with that, because tennis is more than just physical.
Apart from that - Djokovic with his alien-body, in my eyes, hasn't declined as much as others and he just turned 36.

Tennis is still a physical sport at the end of the day. It's not snooker. Fed didn't start sucking against Djokovic out of nowhere.

Again, Djokovic looks like he hasn't declined much because he has no opposition. Fed looked the same until he ran into Djokovic.

Djokovic2011 · Jun 7, 2023

The way I see it Djokovic is still one helluva player and extremely tough to put away in best of 5 but physically he's not quite as strong as he once was, especially on slower surfaces, which is understandable given his age so I don't think it's necessarily an either/or type situation as Chanwan states.

Whoever wins on Friday will have simply been the better player on the day and there's also no shame on whoever loses. There should be nothing shameful or embarrassing about losing to the #3 player in the world and there's definitely nothing embarrassing about losing to the world number 1.

Djokovic2011 · Jun 7, 2023

StrongRule said:
If he is not in his physical prime when he is 20, when will his physical prime be then? If 19 years old Nadal beat prime Federer in his first RG appearance then there is no way there can be any excuses for Alcaraz not to beat a 36 years old. Young Nadal would be totally owning current Djokovic on clay.

Just because a young Nadal would be owning current Djokovic doesn't mean Alcaraz should be as well. Nadal was in a league of his own on clay as you well know.

NoleFam · Jun 7, 2023

mike danny said:
Safin was more or less semi-retired at that time. Saying he was 28 is not telling the whole truth.

He played 23 tournaments in 2006, 19 in 2007 and 23 in 2008. How exactly was he semi-retired?

NoleFam · Jun 7, 2023

mike danny said:
And it should be about absolute level more than the age difference itself. Surely an inexperience 20 year old should be easily to handle than an ATG in his prime, right?

You're probably not right person to be making this argument. Lol.

mike danny · Jun 7, 2023

NoleFam said:
He played 23 tournaments in 2006, 19 in 2007 and 23 in 2008. How exactly was he semi-retired?

Was he even top 20 in those years?

I admit he did play some great isolated matches/tournaments, but he was no longer even a top 20 guy, so mentioning his age here does little to uncover the truth.

mike danny · Jun 7, 2023

NoleFam said:
You're probably not right person to be making this argument. Lol.

And why is that?

weakera · Jun 7, 2023

T007 said:
He never faced an younger ATG in his entire career even in his 30s so far.

In 2011-16 on Grass his competition was Federer and Murray.

In last 5 years his competition is Kyrgios,berrettini,Norrie,Anderson,shapovalov in Fs or SFs.

If competition hasn't declined do you believe these players which are mentioned latter are anywhere close to Federer or Murray on grass.

Of course they aren't

Incognito · Jun 7, 2023

StrongRule said:
Young Nadal would be owning current Djokovic on clay. Given the hype, we can surely expect Alcaraz to win this.

Young Nadal would be owning any version of Djok on clay lol. I believe Carlos hasn’t reached his full potential on clay yet, but he will beat current djokovic. Dont miss the match on friday.

InsuranceMan · Jun 7, 2023

Razer said:
Federer's peak lasted until 2009 end, his prime lasted until 2012 end and then he declined but he was world class until 2019.

I never consider 17 federer as peak federer, it is a past his prime federer but we must agree that 17 federer would smoke any version of roddick/hewitt and possibly most/all versions of murray as well.

Razer said:
As my friend @Holmes once said, the best sword is always forged in the hottest of flames

Well, as “your good friend” @Holmes once said,

Holmes said:
Roger was actually at his best when Novak beat him in 2015. He was close to it in both 2014 and 19. So basically, he was WHIPPED 3 times at his best slam either at or near his best

Holmes said:
Unfortunately, Federer said repeatedly he was at his best, first in 2013, then 15, then 19, which is more relevant than your >< argumentation. Of course admitting this to be true would require admitting Djokovic beat peak Federer.

In their respective threads, you agreed and liked this comment. Actually you even liked both comments. Which is interesting because it seems antithetical to your denial here saying his peak ended in 2009, he declined, and that sort of thing. But, thanks to your sources and the illuminating example of Federer, we know that time only brings improved, peak versions, and thus baby Alcaraz beating a Peak Novak on Friday would mean a colossal hole in the legacy and stir many doubts, logically. Can’t have double standards now, so the same reasoning would therefore apply to the Babyraz men’s SF. If you want to engage in serious, good faith arguments, maybe don’t circlejerk complete trolls. It’s clearly a preposterous idea to anyone sane, but my main point here is that your citing and agreeing with brainless takes massively undermines your own credibility. The constant circlejerk on here is ridiculous and derails countless threads. If you disagree like you claim to here then please don’t compound the already bad problem. Would you like your receipt sir?

Chanwan · Jun 7, 2023

RF-18 said:
No, I don't believe fridays result will show us an approximate estimation on what Alcaraz can become. It has no significance. It's a major semi final match where both players goes in to try and play their best to win. When it's over, you take the experience win or lose, you go to the next tournament and give your best effort there, you train, and so on.

Rarely have I agreed this much with you, but you are spot on here

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 7, 2023

It's a career inflation era, Djokovic is far below the real peak of his powers and Alcaraz got to beat Djokovic fairly easily if he is to prove his aspiring ATG mettle. That's what a prime ATG - and Alcaraz has been prime level so far this year - should do to an aging ATG well past his best.

Poisoned Slice · Jun 7, 2023

TheNachoMan said:
How exactly do we measure greatness

Incognito · Jun 7, 2023

RF-18 said:
There would be no matches played if it was based on pre match analysis about who should win based on this or that. There is absolutely no shame to lose to Djokovic and vice versa. Djokovic is still unbelievably good as the numbers show, but Alcaraz has the upper hand on this surface. Djokos best qualities these days isn't for clay while Alcaraz has really everything on this surface. The thing about Djokovic though is that he has the ability like a true champion this sport has ever seen to dig deep and find ways like no other. And a loss won't alter what Alcaraz is destined to achieve in the future. We are looking at an upcoming dominant force in tennis much like Djokovic and Federer had eras.

Alcaraz favorite surface is hardcourt.

Spin Diesel · Jun 7, 2023

mike danny said:
Tennis is still a physical sport at the end of the day. It's not snooker. Fed didn't start sucking against Djokovic out of nowhere.

Again, Djokovic looks like he hasn't declined much because he has no opposition. Fed looked the same until he ran into Djokovic.

Yeah it‘s not snooker but it‘s also not just a marathon either.
I‘m not saying he has not declined overall. But you also have to consider that Alcaraz hasn‘t peaked yet. And I‘m not so sure if 20-year old Djokovic would have beaten the current one. So that‘s why I think that it doesn‘t make sense to say „no one will take Alcaraz seriously as a Fed/Djoker dominant force if he looses a match like this“

Incognito · Jun 7, 2023

mike danny said:
Was he even top 20 in those years?

I admit he did play some great isolated matches/tournaments, but he was no longer even a top 20 guy, so mentioning his age here does little to uncover the truth.

Safin was worthless those years. The only thing he was good at was getting drunk and getting treatment for STDs.

Which is it?

Legend

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Similar threads